bakerstreetfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Fruipit
Welcome! Hello and welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Toby Haynes page. If you're new to wikia or just new to , you might want to check out some of these links. Not sure where to start? *You might want to read our page all about us *You should also be sure sure to read our policies! *Check out the , and see . *Try out the Sandbox, which is a place to practice editing or formatting without changing any serious content. *If you have a question, you can ask any of the or post a question in the forum for other members to answer. Adding content: *Check out the list of to see what pages are linked to but do not yet exist. *Want to help editing pages we're stuck on? See a full list of stubs here. *Before creating a new page, check to see if the same page with a slightly different spelling or title exists. *When editing on a page make sure there are links on the page, otherwise it's a . *Make sure other pages link to the page you're editing otherwise it's a . *You might also want to check out our Manual of Style - we're in the process of writing this so check it out and have your say about how Baker Street should look. I'm happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! Please leave me a message on my talk page if I can help with anything. Amateur Obsessive (talk) 02:11, April 24, 2014 (UTC) Thanks Many thanks for clarifying - I've deleted the photo and will figure out how to make an avatar later! All best, Charles Veley :Not a problem :) Thank you for being very understanding. I've been around wikia for a while, and so if you need any help at all with hotlinking the image or uploading it as your avatar, don't be afraid to ask! :) 12:08, April 28, 2014 (UTC) Go Away You're delusional and not needed here. We already have Obi, Sherrinford, AO, Tribble-Freund, Nxt, and Jiskran here. Also, we don't need another fangirl. Go back to your Avatar wiki or better yet go to HELL! -- 13:20, April 29, 2014 (UTC) :That really isn't a very pleasant attitude. Why should I not contribute; I love Sherlock just as much as any of them. I ask again; how am I delusional? I'm not a fangirl, I'm a person who enjoys editing and enjoys wiki. We also don't need another anonymous user who thinks that by not having a name, they can be as rude as they want, but you seem to have taken up that role rather well. I have no had a single other user complain about me yet, but you can feel free to do that if they do, too. Better yet, stop hiding behind numbers and create an account. 13:30, April 29, 2014 (UTC) ::Even if I create an account you still won't know who I am, fool. "I have no had a single other user complain about me yet, but you can feel free to do that if they do, too." No had? You're obsessed in correcting others on their spelling and grammar and yet you can't proofread your own? Learn more and come back later, little bitch; or better yet don't come back at all. Just rot in your little cellar and burn in hell. ..|.. -- 14:54, April 29, 2014 (UTC) Can't handle a criticism? Also you want to edit in "piece"? Do they teach the English language there in Australia or are you really a stupid bitch? -- 12:05, May 13, 2014 (UTC) I hate bitches. You are a bitch. I hate you. -- 22:54, May 13, 2014 (UTC) I apologize for calling you a bitch. I won't call you a bitch anymore. Please accept my apology. -- 09:55, May 14, 2014 (UTC) :I don't care that you call me a bitch. I really just want to be allowed to edit in peace. 09:56, May 14, 2014 (UTC) ::Let's put this in the past. I won't call you a bitch anymore. Do you accept my apology? -- 10:02, May 14, 2014 (UTC) :::If you stop undoing my edits, then there's no reason to apologise. You can go your way and I'll go mine, and if something comes up with which we disagree, we discuss it, yeah? 10:03, May 14, 2014 (UTC) ::::Okay. I won't call you a bitch anymore. -- 10:07, May 14, 2014 (UTC) Hi! Have a good day! -- 23:56, May 14, 2014 (UTC) Apologies Hey Fruipit, welcome to the Sherlock community! :D I wanted to apologize for the actions of some the anons; they have been extremely rude and really mean to you. They're just being troublemakers and trolls, pay no attention to what they say. I hope they don't ruin your experience on the wiki or anything. Anyway, it's great to see a new user helping out and editing. :) See you around! —Nxtstep101 (talk) 16:36, April 29, 2014 (UTC) :Hi there! :It's not a problem, honestly. I'm not used to dealing with nonies anymore, so it was a bit of a, uh, shock, but it's a pleasure to know that there are friendly people around too ^^" Relevance People may find the bone structure familiar, therefore a parent or sibling in the acting profession is entirely relevant to this wiki. The 'bare bones' are designed to be expanded upon. Please stop imposing your personal philosophy on everyone else's enjoyment. Alex Jiskran 01:25, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :I'm not sure how a familiar 'bone structure' is in any way relevant. The fact that he has a brother, who is in such and such a show, is not relevant. You can say he has a brother, sure, but the rest is elaboration that we just don't need. This is a Sherlock encyclopaedia, not an encyclopaedia branching out to encompass everything. 01:27, May 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Because people may find the face familiar, but be unable to place exactly where they've seen it. Since the entire entry still comes to less than six whole lines, this is hardly a deluge of superfluous data. Alex Jiskran 01:30, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :::I've edited it to keep the brother, however telling people what he's been in truly is pointless. Look, I don't want to fight on here. I just want to edit. 01:32, May 6, 2014 (UTC) ::::Then with over 800 pages extant and more needed, if you could focus your efforts on adding material rather than removing harmless, at least, additions of mine, there is no reason we cannot happily go our separate ways around this place. Alex Jiskran 01:37, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :::::I am actually waiting for some of my suggestions to be accepted or rejected regarding the MoS before I start going full-out, as I don't want to do a massive overhaul of a page to write it in-universe and then having the community decide that it is not the way we are going to write articles. What I can do is maintain the accuracy of, especially the short, articles. If something is not relevant to the character/place/actor, then it has no need to be on this wiki. 01:40, May 6, 2014 (UTC) Does your pedantry either A) Bring you pleasure or B) Aid in the growth and enjoyment of this wiki for its base of users? If not, you might consider reprioritising. There are many things for which there is no causal, desperate need, but when they are harmless, and allow others to bring their mite to the process in their own fashion, what do you perceive as the advantage in restricting them? The only 'benefit' I can see is for a mind so rigidly structured that it requires absolute compliance without exception, and, as far as I'm aware, that is not the philosophy of Wikia or this wiki. Alex Jiskran 01:45, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :We have no philosophy on this wiki yet. It's still being created. My pedantry, as you call it, gives me a sense of consistency and calmness because I know everything is going to be the same, no matter what. I don't want to restrict them. I want this wiki to be clear and concise, without any confusion. Rules are made to keep order, not to repress people. Yes, I undid your edit at first, but after you re-added and justified it further, I only removed the information that wasn't relevant to that page. I'm not sure how that's being restrictive. You said your piece, I said mine, and together, we worked out a compromise (even if it has developed into slightly angered and/or hurt feelings). 01:50, May 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Every manifestation to date of Sherlock Holmes has been first and foremost about telling the tales. Nowhere in the universe, save perhaps if such exist in realms consisting entirely of machines, is everything "going to be the same, no matter what" - errare humanum est. If pages cannot have some individualisation, some embellishment which is non-essential but does not harm the essential integrity, this become the electronic equivalent of a very dry tome. It is not a science textbook, in which a set of accepted principles are all that matter to the majority of readers. To the best of my knowledge it is not intended to merely categorise in a dissectional manner the components of the various versions of Holmes; there is an element of narrative, opinion and open-ended invitation to explore. Alex Jiskran 02:07, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :::I want the same formatting. The same type of dashes. I want the same policies to apply all across the wiki. I don't want information that is pointless, irrelevant, speculative, or wrong. As this is descending into an edit war, with a nony now editing, status quo should prevail. No, it is not a science textbook; it is an encyclopaedia. We should be reporting facts that are relevant. 02:11, May 6, 2014 (UTC) And in a democratic secenario, barring ridiculous abuse for external reasons, the decision of what is relevant should surely rest with the clear majority of voices, should it not, rather than merely one user, Admin or otherwise, providing their interpretation of that term. Alex Jiskran 02:15, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :I would rather wait for AO to look through everything. This is not the first time a nony has called me 'delusional', and the other two were blocked. So, I'm sorry if I really don't see how the majority in this case will win, when at least 1 of the 2 is a troll. 02:18, May 6, 2014 (UTC) I never cited this individual, nor intended to imply their corroboration as definitive, merely that we should leave the matter to the preponderance of opinions of other (name) users, since we are unlikely to agree, it seems. Alex Jiskran 02:21, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :Ah, okay. So, agree to disagree until we can have a third perspective? I can do that. 02:23, May 6, 2014 (UTC) Me too - especially if it means we can both get back to making positive contributions to this and other wikis. :) Alex Jiskran 02:25, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :Aye :) Oh, and it was nice to meet you. Hi :) 02:28, May 6, 2014 (UTC) To avoid another to and fro Official materials for Sherlock, and publicity, all and always use the term 'series', not season. That's why Sherlock (2010): Episodes said what it said. Alex Jiskran 03:32, May 9, 2014 (UTC) :Ahh. I take 'series' to mean more like, 'Sherlock, the new series from the BBC, has just confirmed a fourth season'. Thanks for telling me! 03:45, May 9, 2014 (UTC) General Shan Do try to find it and if you prove me wrong, edit it as you like. -- 03:43, May 16, 2014 (UTC) :Oh those were different changes. I won't change that 'General' part at the beginning unless I find it, and if I do, I'll put the quote here :) actually, 'general' in that context is not a proper noun, thus it shouldn't be capitalised... 03:45, May 16, 2014 (UTC) ::Okay, I'm on the episode. At 46:46, Soo Lin says "In the power of the one they call Shan. The Black Lotus general". If she is in power, it can be taken to mean that she is the leader, yes? 08:08, May 16, 2014 (UTC) Date style/format Hello, since we're using British English on the wiki, could you stop changing the dates to American style? It'll only have to be changed back again. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 09:56, May 18, 2014 (UTC) :Can do, but many of them have to be changed, anyway, as part of the format is wrong. That's okay, though, yes? 09:57, May 18, 2014 (UTC) ::Changed in what way? --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 10:00, May 18, 2014 (UTC) :::Well, with the format I've been changing it to, it has to be set up without the 'th' on the day formats. However, in the British English one that is to be used across the entire wiki, it has to have these. This is due to the position of the date. May 18th, 2014, versus 18 May, 2014, in British English and American formatting respectively (note the commas, which are also required). 10:03, May 18, 2014 (UTC) ::::What I'm talking about is that the day come first: day/Month/year - so it should be 18th May, 2014. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 10:11, May 18, 2014 (UTC) :::::Yes, I know, but I just find the other one to be neater – hence my usage of it, despite being a native BE speaker. I'll make sure they fit the format your format, though :P I honestly don't actually care, so long as it's consistent. 10:15, May 18, 2014 (UTC) Bot After looking over some of your recent edits, it seems as though you might have used a bot. If so, did you ask AO? I'm pretty sure anything edits in mainspace with a bot should be done by a flagged bot. —Nxtstep101 (talk) 19:46, May 18, 2014 (UTC) :Ahh, that's not a bot, but I am using AWB to make most of those as it just saves time when I'm doing the same things. The difference is that I have to manually accept or reject each edit (as sometimes we don't want underscores changed to spaces or hypens to dashes). It also means I can see the pages we have on the wiki, and edit them as I notice other discrepancies (such as changing over the references to use the 'cite web' template). 23:54, May 18, 2014 (UTC) ::Well that's what I meant: using a bot program to make editing go faster. Some wikis only allow flagged bots to use such programs when editing, that's why I suggested that you ask AO before using one. —Nxtstep101 (talk) 02:43, May 20, 2014 (UTC) :::I did mention it to AO, but he never got back to me. I would be making these edits regardless, but as I said above, it saves time. The reason I haven't flagged it as a bot is because, well, it isn't a bot. It's not automated. All this does is show me where the edits need to be made. 02:52, May 20, 2014 (UTC)